I saw the last 2/3ds of this in the early 80s on TV one night. I was captivated. When the end came I was impressed and stunned. For the last three decades I have wondered if my impressions were wrong because since then, I've grown up, learned much about DePalma's betters, and unfortunately seen at least nine or ten horrid pieces of inept, clumsy, derivative DePalma crap. Now through the miracle of DVD technology, after three decades, I'm able to re-visit this.
And... it's a painfully stupid, clumsy, artless film. The standard DePalma film travesty.
DePalma never minds sacrificing internal logic, taste or common sense in favor of his shallow, out-of-place, ripped-off technique. It took about half an hour to reject this movie. Here's the first 30 minutes of stupidity in a nut-shell: * Gauze over the longest, episodic flashback ever filmed * There's a flashback before the current story even starts * Endless waltz with wife in place of dialog or character development * Takes less than one minute to reach a Hitchcock rip-off * Theme waltz becomes a nuisance after 5 minutes * John Lithgow's accent is ridiculous * Minute-long waltz with daughter so unsubtle that it telegraphs entire premise & twist of the movie * Regional 'flavor' supplied in place of character * Best friend as villain revealed at 8 minute mark removing all tension * Lithgow miscast as a villain; he's about as threatening as a banana * Lithgow or his character is a closet case, causing distraction * Ransom delivered from tacky 1970s tourist paddlewheeler * Tourists will pay to take a paddlewheeler ride ten feet from the shore * Crappy "spooky wind" sound effect playing under windless cemetery * Resemblance of church to tomb, supposed to surprise viewers, but DePalma couldn't resist putting it under the credits.
A movie can overcome any five small annoyances, but in just under half an hour DePalma has accumulated so many crimes against film construction and human intelligence (with assistance form Paul Schrader!) that Obsession was clearly not going to recover. Is he up to the challenge of reversing the incestuous plot and unturn my stomach? Of course not. Script schmipt... there are Hitchcock movies that DePalma needs to rip off. As I've noted before he seems to watch classic thrillers by talented directors, then think "I'd like to make the crappy version of this!"
This isn't the worst DePalma movie. Nothing could suck more than the start-to-finish idiocy of 'Sisters.' But it can share the "2nd worst DePalma movie" slot with everything else he's made*.
(*except somehow, miraculously... Carrie)
29 out of 51 found this helpful